It didn't have to be this way because the government didn't need to make this a wedge issue between its base and other parties. It poisoned the well immediately saying that anyone who was against this project was a foreign funded radical who hated Canada. Instead of being, a responsible measured government, they hunkered down on the only strategy they know which is partisan pit fighting. A real government would have NOT taken a stand on it and would have let the merits of the project speak for itself. That way the decision to approve or not would not have been this moronic 2 year long piece of theatre that was a foregone conclusion.
They could have also done a number of things, such as honestly build bridges. They could have satisfied their duty to consult with First Nations instead of outsourcing the messiest bits to Enbridge. But again, the mouth foaming herd that is this government's base would never accept an honest attempt at negotiating and conciliation with FNs and this government has shown since it was voted in that when push comes to shove they will always appease the base or at least not directly thumb their nose at them.
They could have honestly dealt with the GHG emissions which is the backbone of the environmental movement's opposition. Back in 2007 they could have followed through on their own plan to regulate GHGs from oil and gas removing an important leg of the stool of opposition. They could have proactively put money to actually developing a "world class" monitoring and spill prevention system before it was in the late stages of consideration by the NEB. What they did was ad hoc and hamfisted reactionary response to some pretty legitimate science on the inadequacy of spill prevention and impacts of spills that were coming out of the testimoney in the JRP.
Basically everything this group of yokels has done has simply mirrored the adage of using tactics in the place of strategy. They can't see beyond the lobby of the base's AGM.
Agreed on almost everything, I hate the tactics and lack of GHG regulations. I still wonder if FN support would have come without major financial considerations.
Agreed on almost everything, I hate the tactics and lack of GHG regulations. I still wonder if FN support would have come without major financial considerations.
No they would not have. They would have had equity in the project and they would have been approached with a question on whether they wanted it or not, not what's the least about of scraps we can provide to buy you guys off. But that's the cost of doing business in BC and moaning about it is like complaining how much pipe steel costs.
The problem with the greenhouse gas argument is that the oil doesn't just disappear. It gets transported by rail instead which is far more dangerous. Or it gets substituted by heavy oil out of Kuwait. Steam injection using desalinated water or puts more money into Russian oil and gas. Or contiued use of Coal fired plants
The pipeline should be assessed on its merits as a pipeline and not on if it will increase local greenhouse gas production in Canada. Wether Canada slowly extracts or quickly extracts its oil that oil or other countries oil is still going to get burnt based on energy demand.
Now the issue with shipping heavy oil through the narrows at kitamat is a real concern and certainly hasn't been properly addressed.
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
The problem with the greenhouse gas argument is that the oil doesn't just disappear. It gets transported by rail instead which is far more dangerous. Or it gets substituted by heavy oil out of Kuwait. Steam injection using desalinated water or puts more money into Russian oil and gas. Or contiued use of Coal fired plants
The pipeline should be assessed on its merits as a pipeline and not on if it will increase local greenhouse gas production in Canada. Wether Canada slowly extracts or quickly extracts its oil that oil or other countries oil is still going to get burnt based on energy demand.
Now the issue with shipping heavy oil through the narrows at kitamat is a real concern and certainly hasn't been properly addressed.
Your first assumption is a major assumption. The counter-factual to not building NGP isn't simply waving your hand and saying the oil is still produced anyway. Unless oil finds markets it stays in the ground. GHGs are central to this question. Canada has made targetsto reduce its GHGs by 17 percent by 2020. To achieve these targets the government would need to demonstrate how building the pipeline and the new upstream oil production that will come would be consistent with those targets. It's basic math.
You can't count all the upstream benefits of the pipeline without equally counting all the upstream costs. The benefits are widely touted, X amount of investment in oil sands infrastructure and jobs Jobs JOBS! The costs are GHG emissions and other environmental impacts from that production. The Harper government expressly forebade any consideration of the costs which is a fundamentally inconsistent and pre-emptive methodology.
Your first assumption is a major assumption. The counter-factual to not building NGP isn't simply waving your hand and saying the oil is still produced anyway. Unless oil finds markets it stays in the ground. GHGs are central to this question. Canada has made targetsto reduce its GHGs by 17 percent by 2020. To achieve these targets the government would need to demonstrate how building the pipeline and the new upstream oil production that will come would be consistent with those targets. It's basic math.
You can't count all the upstream benefits of the pipeline without equally counting all the upstream costs. The benefits are widely touted, X amount of investment in oil sands infrastructure and jobs Jobs JOBS! The costs are GHG emissions and other environmental impacts from that production. The Harper government expressly forebade any consideration of the costs which is a fundamentally inconsistent and pre-emptive methodology.
The Assumption that limiting domestic GHG production will achieve any measurable goal outside of itself is the biggest assumption of all.
People need to work to feed their families.
Besides, with the Liberals back in power in Ontario we can count on needing jobs in the west more than ever.
Provinces don't get to say yes or no to the movement of natural resources across Canada. It's one of the rules of confederation. Alberta doesn't get to say no to BC lumber moving through, BC doesn't get to say no to Alberta oil either.
If the BC government holds it up with building permit delays or demands for compensation just to have the oil move through, they would only get so far before the federal government steps in. BC is not a sovereign nation.
Your first assumption is a major assumption. The counter-factual to not building NGP isn't simply waving your hand and saying the oil is still produced anyway. Unless oil finds markets it stays in the ground. GHGs are central to this question. Canada has made targetsto reduce its GHGs by 17 percent by 2020. To achieve these targets the government would need to demonstrate how building the pipeline and the new upstream oil production that will come would be consistent with those targets. It's basic math.
You can't count all the upstream benefits of the pipeline without equally counting all the upstream costs. The benefits are widely touted, X amount of investment in oil sands infrastructure and jobs Jobs JOBS! The costs are GHG emissions and other environmental impacts from that production. The Harper government expressly forebade any consideration of the costs which is a fundamentally inconsistent and pre-emptive methodology.
Over time you have demonstrated that there are some very important things you just don't comprehend. It's just true. The demand for oil is such that if the AB oilsands crude doesn't come out of the ground, it will somewhere else. Maybe Brazil, maybe Kuwait maybe S.A. or most likely Venezuela.
The Oil will be produced anyway. It just will. If you want to understand why, go learn about the concepts of demand elasticity. Wether this line goes ahead or not, the same amount of oil will come out of the ground. Crude Oil vessels move all over the world rather cheaply, distributing it to who wants it. Its simply a competition to see who produces those barrels.
We could make or not make some 17% GHG target, but to the extent we get there because we don't produce heavy oil, someone else on the planet will. if this is what it takes to meet this GHG target we will do the equivalent of creating a non smoking row on a plane that permits smoking everywhere else. You can feel good about what you've done in row 17, but it won't matter.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Flames in 07 For This Useful Post:
Your first assumption is a major assumption. The counter-factual to not building NGP isn't simply waving your hand and saying the oil is still produced anyway. Unless oil finds markets it stays in the ground. GHGs are central to this question. Canada has made targetsto reduce its GHGs by 17 percent by 2020. To achieve these targets the government would need to demonstrate how building the pipeline and the new upstream oil production that will come would be consistent with those targets. It's basic math.
You can't count all the upstream benefits of the pipeline without equally counting all the upstream costs. The benefits are widely touted, X amount of investment in oil sands infrastructure and jobs Jobs JOBS! The costs are GHG emissions and other environmental impacts from that production. The Harper government expressly forebade any consideration of the costs which is a fundamentally inconsistent and pre-emptive methodology.
You cant say that the world will produce more jobs as a result of this pipeline, you can take the benefit of moving the created jobs to alberta.
You cant say moving oil production out of canada will decrease world wide greenhouse gas production, you can fairly argue that Canadas GHGs would be reduced, unfortunately the earth doesnt care where the CO2 comes from. The oil will still come out of the ground at the same rate, it just wont be from Canada's
Beyond that barring new polluting projects built to better technologies than previous ones is a poor way of limiting green house gases. The only efficient method of limiting carbon will be pricing it. The government shouldnt be picking with projects go ahead based on how they polute. They should set a target for carbon emmissions and auction those credits off every year to industry and citizens and you need carbon credits to burn carbon. Then allow businesses and individuals to set the price of Carbon and base projects on that cost.
If the government did that you might find that the pipeline actually saves carbon. Rail is more carbon intensive than a pipeline per barrel so increasing demand for rail makes our carbon intensive oil less green.
Also by just denying projects instead of encouraging green behaviour you just push production out of Canada and into areas where there is zero oversight into ghg and other enviromental and safety issues.
SAGD and its varriants are now being used all over the world to extract heavy oil. So the arguement that our oil is dirtier than other oil fails as all new production is non conventional.
Any solution needs to start with decreasing the demand side of the equation as energy is relatively inelastic to price changes.
The longer the delay on pipeline infrastructure the greater the amount of oil moved by rail, and I for one have zero faith in CP or CN's safety standards when it comes to rail traffic. They skirt the Transport Canada laws enough as it is.
The cost cutting in inspections alone at CP is cause for worry, thank you Mr. Jim Prentice who happens to be on the CP board of directors and will most likely run our province soon.
The longer the delay on pipeline infrastructure the greater the amount of oil moved by rail, and I for one have zero faith in CP or CN's safety standards when it comes to rail traffic. They skirt the Transport Canada laws enough as it is.
The cost cutting in inspections alone at CP is cause for worry, thank you Mr. Jim Prentice who happens to be on the CP board of directors and will most likely run our province soon.
Apparently people think lying in front of construction crews will result in the pipeline being defeated.
Over time you have demonstrated that there are some very important things you just don't comprehend. It's just true. The demand for oil is such that if the AB oilsands crude doesn't come out of the ground, it will somewhere else. Maybe Brazil, maybe Kuwait maybe S.A. or most likely Venezuela.
Demand for oil is not "locked in." Infact you seem fall victim to the issue that you accuse me of below in not understand elasticities. Demand for oil is not completely inelastic. Infact, we're seeing that over $120 bbl demand becomes highly elastic especially in price taking countries like China.
Quote:
The Oil will be produced anyway. It just will.
Actually this is the least comprehensible statement between you and I. Oil being produced is not a fait-accompli and no amount of saying that it will will make it so. Oil being produced is a product of the regional demand which is responsive to oil prices and to substitutes for oil.
Quote:
If you want to understand why, go learn about the concepts of demand elasticity. Wether this line goes ahead or not, the same amount of oil will come out of the ground. Crude Oil vessels move all over the world rather cheaply, distributing it to who wants it. Its simply a competition to see who produces those barrels.
A true laffer of a passage when you seem to ignore you're own advice. It's not simply a competition, it's very complex actually. Chinese oil demand is not a black hole.
Quote:
We could make or not make some 17% GHG target, but to the extent we get there because we don't produce heavy oil, someone else on the planet will. if this is what it takes to meet this GHG target we will do the equivalent of creating a non smoking row on a plane that permits smoking everywhere else. You can feel good about what you've done in row 17, but it won't matter.
Heavy oil production is not locked in. The IEA just released a report yesterday saying how shale oil production is likely to be the next marginal unconventional resource. Shale oil GHGs are approximately 20% lower than oilsands. That will come with a GHG benefit.
If you are really interested in learning on the marginal GHG impacts of whether oilsands pipelines are built or not, read this article. It's a good scenario analysis of whether blocking pipelines will reduce GHGs. It's certainly up in the air but it's not nearly as simplified as you make it. My statements throughout this thread are that you can expand oil production with pipelines so long as you reduce GHG emissions from that expanded production. It's possible with regulations.
If you are really interested in learning on the marginal GHG impacts of whether oilsands pipelines are built or not, read this article. It's a good scenario analysis of whether blocking pipelines will reduce GHGs. It's certainly up in the air but it's not nearly as simplified as you make it. My statements throughout this thread are that you can expand oil production with pipelines so long as you reduce GHG emissions from that expanded production. It's possible with regulations.
So you want to block a pipeline in which the negative impacts are up in the air and that the solution to these negative impacts are ghg regulation which is in the hands of the government and can be implemented at any time regardless of whether or not the pipeline is built.
I assume you are against all pipelines then? Keystone, the Eastern line and expansion to burnaby on the same grounds? Even the NDP supports the eastern line with no regards to ghgs.
From your article from the us state department study
Quote:
Even if environmentalists managed to block all new pipelines out of Alberta, State’s EIS concluded that it would reduce tar sands production by just 2 to 4 percent by 2030. (The State Department must ultimately bless the international pipeline project as “in the national interest” before construction can commence, placing the agency in the crosshairs of environmental activists, who have blasted State’s draft EIS.)
And since all pipeline expansion has been blocked rail will be used at higher intensity. On a tailpipe basis tarsands (which emmission intensity is decreasing) is 17% more polluting than average US refined crude. Note that any crude which replaces existing production will not be averge in intensity so the gap is less wide than the 17%.
Enviromental groups should be focused on moving to nuclear and getting rid of coal. Instead the tarsands gets the dollars thrown at it for something that will have marginal affect.
In light of the recent approval of the Northern Gateway pipeline, we wanted to remind you of the award winning radio program "Energy Voices" presented by CJSW and Student Energy. This episode features a debate between renowned Environmentalist Tzeporah Berman, Executive Director of the Coastal First Nations Art Sterritt, and the President of the Northern Gateway Pipelines John Carruthers.
Now the interesting part begins. I'm most keen to see how united the various First Nations will or won't be in their opposition. Still plenty of hurdles before this thing gets done.
Today, we unequivocally reject the Harper Government’s decision to approve the Enbridge Northern Gateway tanker and pipelines project and First Nations will immediately go to court to vigorously pursue all lawful means to stop the Enbridge project.
We have governed our lands, in accordance to our Indigenous laws, since time immemorial. Our inherent Title and Rights and our legal authority over our respective territories have never been surrendered.
Our inherent rights are human rights constitutionally enshrined, judicially recognized and embodied in international legal instruments including the United Nations’ Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
This project, and the federal process to approve it, violated our rights and our laws. We are uniting to defend our lands and waters of our respective territories. Our rights and laws compel us to act.
Enbridge’s Northern Gateway tanker and pipeline project exposes all communities from Alberta to the Pacific Coast to the undeniable risk of pipeline and supertanker oil spills. First Nations and the majority of British Columbians believe this project poses an unacceptable risk to the environment, the health, the safety and livelihoods of all peoples throughout this province.
We will defend our territories whatever the costs may be.
Council of the Haida Nation
Gitanmaax Band Council
Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs
Gitgaat
Gitxaala
Gitxsan (Delgamuukw)
Haisla
Heiltsuk
KitasooXai'xais
Lax kw'alaams
Metlakatla
NadlehWhut'en
Nak'azdli
Neskonlith Indian Band
Office of the Wet'suwet'en
Saikuz First Nation
Takla Lake
Tlazten
Tsetsaut / Skii km Lax Ha
Tsleil-Waututh Nation
Wet'suwet'en First Nation
Williams Lake Indian Band
Xatsull
Carrier Sekani Tribal Council
Coastal First Nations
St'at'imc Chiefs Council
Tahltan Central Council
Yinka Dene Alliance
BC Assembly of First Nations
First Nations Summit
Union of BC Indian Chiefs
Suncor, CNRL and another major (soon to come) will all be reducing their greenhouse gas emissions immensly in the next 1-5 years.
Which will be irrelevant and not appease any of those opposed to it whatsoever, therefore they should be ignored and promptly removed by whatever force necessary if dumb enough to attempt to stop the pipeline from being built.
Which will be irrelevant and not appease any of those opposed to it whatsoever, therefore they should be ignored and promptly removed by whatever force necessary if dumb enough to attempt to stop the pipeline from being built.
